Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf

8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf

1/9

Egypt Exploration Society

The Currency of Egypt under the PtolemiesAuthor(s): J. G. MilneSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 1938), pp. 200-207Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792.

Accessed: 01/10/2013 11:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Egypt Exploration Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees


2/9

(200)

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES

BY J. G.

MILNE

BEFOREthe

conquest

of

Egypt by

Alexander he

Great,

there was

nothing

that

could be

described

as

a

native

coinage

n circulation

n

the

country:

certain

metals,

usually gold

or

copper,

were

raded

n

exchange

both for ocal and for

foreign

business,

but

they

were

reated

as commodities

nd

were

not

given

standards f

value:

they passed

by

weight

at

the market

price.

Silver

is more

rarely

mentioned

n the recordsof business ransactions:

t was not

obtained

romlocal

sources,and,

though

a

substantial

amountmust

have

been

mported-

the inscriptionsof OsorkonI show that he had given at least 560,000poundsof silver,

mainly

manufactured,

o the

temples

n the first four

years

of his

reign-its

use seems

to

have

been

confined

o articlesof

luxury

or ornament. It is

true that

muchof this

silver

came

from Greek

ands n the formof

coin,

but the reason or this is that to the Greeks

coin was

virtually

an

ingot,

and

an

order

or silver

bullionwould most

naturally

be

met

by

the dis-

patch

of coinsto the

required

weight.

The

destiny

of

Greek

ilvercoins n

Egypt

is

clear

rom

the condition

of the

hoards-about

a

score n number

before he

Greek

onquest-that

have

been

recorded

1

they

are

typically

miscellaneous

ollections

rom

differentdistricts

and of

different

tandards,

ometimes

mixed

up

with

scrap

metal,

and often

hacked

to

test their

composition

n

such

a

way

as to obscurewhat was

the

most

essential

point

in a coin

for

the

purposes

of

a

Greek

rader,

he

badge

of

the

issuingauthority.

It wouldhave been

a

com-

plicated

affair

for an

exchange

agent

or

banker

to evaluate such

a

collection

n

terms of

specie:

treated

as

bullion,

they

simply

had

to

be

weighed

out. In

two or three cases their

destiny

is

even

clearer,

as

the

process

of

melting

and

remaking

he

metal

had

been started

before

he

hoardswere

concealed,

and

half-melted

oins or

lumps

from crucibles

are mixed

up

with the

coins.2

It

may

be taken

as certain that

these

coins,

so

far as the

Egyptian

merchants

were

concerned,

were

regarded

olely

as bullion.

It

might

have

been

expected

that,

after

the Persian

conquest

of

Egypt,

the Persian

coinage

of

gold

daricsand

silver

sigloi

would

have been

made

egal

currency

n

the

country;

but there

s

no

evidence hat

they

were

so used.

Two instances are

recorded

of

the

occurrence

f darics n

hoards,3

but

these

are

comparatively

ate,

and with the darics

here

were

gold

coinsof

Philip

II of

Macedon;

while

thereis only one casein whichsigloiwere found n a hoard,4andthen in associationwith a

mixed

lot of

Greek

ilver.

Sigloi

do not

occur

casually

on

Egyptian

sites,

as

practically

all

kinds of

currency

of later

periods

do,

and

it

seems

fair to

conclude hat

they

did not

form

an official

part

of the media

for

the transaction

of business

n

Egypt.

Herodotus,

t

may

be

said,

regardsAryandes

as

having

struck

silver coins when he was

satrap

of

Egypt;

but,

whatever

value

may

be

placed

on

the

story,

it does

not

suggest

that the

coins

were meant

for

local

use,

and

we need

not

suppose

hat

they

were.

An

approximation

o

coinage

may

be found n

some

pieces

of

gold

stamped

on

both

faces

with

hieroglyphic

igns,

the

reading

of

which s

good

Gold :

these

are

of

adjustedweight,

and

might

be

regarded

as

belonging

o

the

same

class as

the

early

Greekcoins of

pale

gold

1 The hoardsof Greek coins have been collectedand indexed by S. P. Noe, Bibliographyf GreekCoin-

hoards

2nd

edn.,

New

York,

1937).

2

E.g.

Noe,

143

(Benha el- Asl)

and 144

(Beni Iasan).

3

Noe,

322

and

420.

4

Noe,

888.

6

Herodotus

v,

166.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

THE

CURRENCY OF

EGYPT UNDER

THE

PTOLEMIES

201

or

silver,

but

for

the

fact

that

they

bear

no

sort

of

clue

to

the

authority

under which

they

were

issued,

and so

lack

the

guarantee

which

was

indispensable

to

the

Greek idea of a coin.

Obviously

under

these

circumstances

they

could

not have

a

face

value,

and it

is

most

probable

that

they

are

ingots

of

gold

made

up

after

the

convenient Greek

pattern

in

handy

lumps:

a

Greek

might

have

regarded

them

as

staters,

but

certainly

not

as

nomismata.1

The

only

coins which

can

be

definitely

accepted

as

struck

in

Egypt

before

the

time

of

Alexander

belong

to the

middle of the

fourth

century,

and are

copies

of Athenian

types

of

the

preceding

century.

In all

probability

these were

produced

to be

used

for

the

pay

of

Greek

mercenaries,

who were

employed

by

the native rebels

against

the Persian

rule,

and

would

naturally

want

to be

paid

in Greek

money:

an Athenian

general,

Chabrias,

had

been

sent

over,

and

might

have taken with

him

some

old

dies from the

Athenian mint as

part

of

his

equipment.

Two

specimens

of such Athenian

tetradrachm

dies

have

been found in

Egypt,

in

one

case

associated

with

a

quantity

of old coins

;2

and

another

hoard was

composed

of

defaced

Phoenician

coins,

scrap

silver,

and

melted

metal,

together

with new Athenian coins

of these old types, presumably just produced on the spot.3 But these copies of Greek coins

would

only

have

a

currency

value

to the

mercenaries,

and the

types

would

have

carried no

meaning

outside

the

camps

of the

insurgent party.

The same

may

be said of

a

solitary

gold

coin,

showing

like them

Athenian

types,

though

not from

regular

Athenian

dies,

which has

the

name of

Tachos,

the leader

of

the

rebellion:4

dies

for

gold

would

not be

procurable

from

Athens,

so

he

had

some made

with

the familiar

types

for his

mercenaries.

When

Alexander

conquered Egypt,

therefore,

it

is

fairly

certain

that

the mass of

the

inhabitants

had

no

acquaintance

with

coinage

in

the

Greek sense-the

idea

that a

piece

of

metal

could

have

a

definite

purchasing

power

assigned

to

it,

apart

from

its metal

content

and

the

local

market

prices,

was

quite

outside their

experience.

Moreover,

the

system

of

coinage to which they were

introduced

was

complicated by

the fact that

it was on

a

bimetallic

basis,

and

the

ratio of metal

values in

Egypt

had never

been the same

as in

Europe. Egypt,

like

all the

rest

of the

Empire

of

Alexander,

was to be

Hellenized,

and

the Hellenic

ideal

of

a

universal

Empire

postulated

a common

currency

of

one

standard

for

all

provinces.

Alex-

ander had

adopted

the Athenian

standard,

which

was based

on

silver,

with

gold

at

a

fixed

ratio

of

10:1,

and bronze

as

a

subsidiary

token

currency;

but under

the native

kings

the

ratio of

gold

to

silver

had been

only

2:1.5

It

may

be doubted

whether

the

Alexandrine

system

would

ever have

taken

root

in

Egypt,

even

if the

Empire

had

held

together.

In

the

first

instance

a mint was

set

up

in

Egypt,

presumably

at

Alexandria,

and

there

was

an issue

of

tetradrachms

of

the normal

Alexandrine

types

:6

it

is not certain

whether

any

lower

denominations

were

struck

at

the

same

time.

These

tetradrachms

were

not of course

intended for

purely

local circulation:

they

would be current throughout the Empire, and

equally

the issues of

other

mints

would be

current

in

Egypt.

So

they

are found in

hoards

outside

the

country,

and

a

large

proportion

of

the

Alexandrine

tetradrachms

that have

come

from

Egypt

are

of external

mints. The

Egyptian

would

not need

to trouble

about the

mint-

marks

on

the

coins:

they

would

all be

classed

together

as

silver of

Alexander,

and the

aipyvptov

AAXeav8pelov

entioned

in an

Elephantine papyrus

of 311-10

B.C.7would doubtless

be of

this

kind.

But

a

change

began

to

be

manifest,

even

before

the death

of

the

boy

Alexander

put

an end

to all

pretence

of

unity

in the

provinces:

the silver

was

still struck

in

the

name

of

Alexander,

though

with new

types-on

the

obverse

a

head of

Alexander

the

Great

in

an

1

G.

F.

Hill in

Num.

Chron.,

926,

132.

2

J. N. Svoronosn Corolla umismatica,85:G.F. HillinNum.Chron., 922 14.

3

JEA

19,

119.

4

G. F.

Hill

in

Num.

Chron.,

1926,

130.

5

JEA

15,

150.

6

E. T.

Newell,

Alexander

hoards:Demanhur

New

York,

1923),

144-7.

7

P.

Eleph.,

1.



4/9

J.

G. MILNE

elephant-skin

ap,

on

the

reverse

a

figure

of

Athene-and the tetradrachms

were

kept

on

the

Alexandrine

tandard;

but

the smaller

coins,

the drachmas

nd

half-drachmas,

ereof

reduced

weight,

approximating

o

the

Asiatic

standard

commonly

knownas

Rhodian.1

The

reason for

this

change

was doubtless hat the

larger

coins

would be

required

as

much for

external radeasfor

nternal,

whilethe smallerwerefor localcirculation:o thetetradrachms

conformed

o the standard

of

the

Empire,

but

the drachmas ould

conveniently

be assimi-

lated

to

Egyptian

values

of

metal.

It is not

clear

at what

date

precisely

he

next

change

was

made

in

the standardof

the

silver:it

may

have

been

after the

death

of Alexander

V,

or

when

Ptolemy

took

the title

of

king

in

306,

or at some

intermediatedate.

The issue

of

tetradrachmswith

the name

of

Alexander

and the

types

describedabove

continued,

but

the

weight

was

reducedto

the

Phoenician

standard.2

This meant that

the

Alexandrine deal of a

commonstandard

or

the

Greek

worldhad

been

definitely

abandoned:

here

was

no

longer

a

single

authority

or

the

determination

f

the

circulating

alue

of

coins,

and

each

of the

Successors ouldfix

it

as

he

wished. Forthepurposes f external radewhich nvolvedpayments n silverPhoeniciawas

far

the most

importantpart

of

the dominionsof

Ptolemy:

Egypt imported

silver,

but

did

not

export

it;

but the

Phoenician

merchantswould

require

a

supply

of

silver

staters,

and

therefore

Ptolemy adjusted

his

coinage

o

their

valuation.

As

will be

seen,

it

was

this

prin-

ciple

which

governed

he standardof

the Ptolemaic

silver for the

next

century.

This

drop

n

the

weight

of

the

silver

stater was

accompanied

y

a

corresponding

rop

n

the

gold:

hitherto

gold

staters

and

double

staters of

the Alexandrine

tandard

had

been

coined

n

Egypt,

the

stater

being

approximately

f the

weight

of

two

Alexandrine

rachmas;

and

Ptolemy

reducedhis

staterto

the

weight

of

two

Phoenician

drachmas.

But

the

change

in the

silverstandard

had

been

due

n

part

at

any

rate

to

the

higher

value

of silver

as

against

gold

in

Egypt,

and

for

internal

purposes

t

was a

mistake

to

bring

downthe

gold to corre-

spond

withthe silver.

So

the

next

issue of

gold

was

of a

different

haracter:

he

weight

of

the

unit

was

approximately

hat of

the

double

stater

of

Alexander,

which

would

pass

outside

Egypt

on the basis

of

a

weight

equivalent

o

four

drachmas,

while

t

was

approximately

ive

times the

weight

of

the

Egyptian

silver

drachma:as all

Greek

gold

coinage

at

this

period

seems

to

have

been

intended

to

serve

merely

as

an

expression

of

silver

for

convenience

n

paying

arge

sums,

weight

against

weight

at

the

local

ratio

of

values,

t

was

obviously

desir-

able

to

securethe

acceptance

of

a

coin

by making

t of a

weight

that

could

be

related to

alternative

standardsused in

the areas to

which it

was

likely

to

be sent.

This

principle

governed

he issues of

gold

in

Egypt

till

the

middleof

the

reign

of

Philadelphus.

There

s

very

little evidenceof

the

use of

bronze

coins

in

Egypt during

he

earlier

years

of Greekrule; it may be surmised hat the classesof the populationwhowouldhave had

most

occasion

o use

it,

the

peasantry

and

artisans,

had not

become

amiliar

with

the

new

idea

of

coinage,

and

so low

values

werenot

issued n

any quantity.

The

first

plentiful

bronze

issueswere

afterthe

assumption

f

the

royal

itle

by

Ptolemy

n 306:

these

areof

the

ordinary

Greek

module,

with

nothing

much

more than an

inch in

diameter,

and

probably

erved as

tokens for

fractionsof

the

drachma:

here

is no

sure

basis on

which to

estimate

their

de-

nominations,

ut if

a

comparison

with

Syrian

oinage

anbe

accepted,

he

chief

denomination

may

have been a

half-drachma.

During

the

reign

of

Ptolemy

Soter,

and for

the

first

part

of

that

of

Philadelphus,

he

official

Egyptian

currency

ontinued

on

this

basis,

which

was

practically

hat

of

Alexander

1

J. N. Svoronos,

ra

vojllaiauaa

TWrV

IlToAc paLwv,

ii, pp. 7 ff., series v. 2. (TheheadofAlexanderhadappeared

with the

old

reverse

types

earlier,

but

no

change

n

weight

is

associated

with

this.)

2

Svoronos,

pp.

18

ff.,

group

1,

series .

202



5/9

THE

CURRENCY

OF EGYPT

UNDER

THE

PTOLEMIES

203

with a

reduced

silver

unit. But

it is

noticeable

that a

substantial

proportion

of the

silver

tetradrachms

of

this

period

are

punch-marked

or

scratched

with

signs,

which is

evidence

that

they

were

not

accepted

in trade

at

the

value

put

on them

by

the

issuing

authority.

Suoh

marking

is found

on

several

series

of

Greek

coins,

and

in

every

case it can be shown to

be due

to

the

original guarantee

of value

having

ceased to

be

effective;

for

instance,

the

coins

of

Aegina

were

freely punch-marked

after

the reduction

of

Aegina

by

Athens,

and

so were

the Persian

sigloi

after

the fall

of

the

Persian

Empire.1

It would

appear

that the

Egyptian

merchants

took

the

Ptolemaic

silver,

not

at

its

nominal

value,

but as

bullion,

which at

Egyptian

rates

would be

much

higher,

and

marked

the

coins to

signify

the fact:

it

was

probably

illegal,

but the

government

could not have enforced

the

acceptance

of their coins

at

an

artificial

rate without

causing

a

considerable

dislocation

of

trade,

and

so

acquiesced

in

the

practice.

The

situation

was however

obviously

unsatisfactory,

especially

in view of the

possession

of the

greater

part

of

Phoenicia

by

the Ptolemies:

the

coinage

which

was not suited

to

Egyptian requirementswas quite suitable for the Phoenicians; and, so far as silver was con-

cerned,

the Phoenician

merchants

were

more

important

than the

Egyptian,

for the

reasons

already

stated.

About

270

the

whole

system

seems

to

have been

revised,

and

separate

treat-

ment

accorded

to

Phoenicia

and

to

Egypt.

There

is a

plentiful

coinage

of

silver,

which

belongs

to

the

reigns

of

Philadelphus,

Euergetes,

and

Philopator,

and consists

almost

en-

tirely

of tetradrachms:

it is on

the

Phoenician

standard,

and the

majority

of the coins

can

be

assigned

by

their

mint-marks

to

the

mints

of

Tyre,

Sidon,

Ptolemais

Ake,

Joppa,

and

Gaza;

these are

normally

dated

by

regnal years.2

Coins

generally

similar

to

these,

but

with-

out

mint-marks,

are

also

found,

and

these

have been

regarded

as

the issues

of the mint

of

Alexandria.3

But

it

should be

observed

that the

coins of the

mints of Phoenicia

have

on

the

reverse the legend PTOAEMAIOY flTHPOX, not PTOAEMAIOY

BAVIAEfl as on

the

earlier

coins of Soter

and

Philadelphus

and the

later ones

of the second

and first

centuries:

this

distinctive

formula

may

have

been

adopted

for

use

in these

mints from

a

desire

to

consult

the

feelings

of

the Phoenicians:

the omission

of the

title

B

AS

AlEnY

would avoid

emphasis

on the

foreign

overlordship.

In

the

next

century

a

somewhat

similar

idea

may

be traced

in

the

coinage

of

the Seleucid

kings

at

their

Phoenician

mints:

this

was on

the

Phoenician

standard,

instead

of the

Alexandrine

which

was used

at Antioch

and other

Seleucid

mints,

and so

clearly

intended for Phoenician

trade;

and

on

it the

laudatory

titles,

which

were

inscribed

on the

Antiochene

issues,

do not

appear.

As the

coins of the

series

under considera-

tion

which have

no mint-marks

bear

the

same

legend

as

those

with the mint-marks

of

Phoenicia,

it is fair

to assume

that,

even

if

they

were

struck

at

Alexandria,

they

were

de-

signed

primarily

for circulation in Phoenicia. So far as

Egypt

was concerned,

they

were on

much

the same

economic

footing

as

foreign

coins,

and

this renders

their

treatment,

or

maltreatment,

by

punching

more

understandable.

The

most

important

item

in the revision

of the

system

for the

purposes

of

Egyptian

local

circulation

was

the

introduction

of an

entirely

new

series

of

bronze

coins,4

which were

evi-

dently

intended

to contain

an

amount of

metal

bearing

some relation

to their

face

values,

so as to remove

them

out

of

the

category

of

mere

tokens.

The

largest

of

them

are

of a

size

and

weight

for

which there is

no

parallel

to be

found

in the

issues

of

Greece

or

Asia

Minor:

they

average

about six

times

the

weight

of the

chief

bronze

coin

of

Soter,

and

if,

as

is not

improbable,

they

were

issued

as

drachmas,

while

the earlier

coin

may

have been

a

half-

1

Num.

Chron.,

1931,

177.

2

Svoronos,

pp.

78

ff.,

group

8, 1,

series

ii;

2, ii;

3,

ii;

4,

i;

5,

i:

p.

150,

group

7:

pp.

197

ff.

3

Svoronos,

p.

61,

group

2:

p.

156,

group

4:

p.

178,

group

2.

4

Svoronos,

pp.

64

ff.,

group

3.



6/9

J. G. MILNE

drachma,

he

increase

n

weight

was

threefold.

Such

an

increase

cannot be

explained

as a

raising

of

the standard:

here are a

few instances

n

Greek

oinage

of the standardof

bronze

being

raised,

hough

he reverse

process

s

much

more

common;

but no

raising

by

more han

about

twenty-fiveper

cent.

is

known. The

only possibleexplanation

s that

the

government

decided

o initiate an

independent oinage

on a bronze

tandard,

whichwas

not to be

subject

to the fluctuations

of

prices

of

silver:

in

other erms

it

may

be said that

they

forsook

he

Alexandrine ilver

standard,

and

dissociated

heir

coinage

rom

the

Greek

ystem.

Theresults

of

this

change

are

evidentalmost

at

once,

both

n

the

hoards

nd

n

the

papyri:

in

the

middle

of the third

century

the

typical

Egyptian

hoard consistsnot of

silver

tetra-

drachms,

as was

the case about

300,

but of

bronze

of

the two

largest

sizes,

which

may

be

taken

to

be drachmas

and

half-drachmas;

nd

payments

of

substantial

sums

in

bronze

appear

n

the

papyri.

The

fact

that

the

Ptolemaic

bronzeof this

period

had a

real

metal

value also

appears

rom ts

export

n

considerable

uantities

o

foreign

countries: he coins

of

this

series

have been found

all round

he

Mediterranean,

nd

even

as

far afield

as

Britain,

and in Italy they wereoccasionallyrestruck or the local bronzecoinage. Technically t

would

seem that

both

silver and

bronze

were

egal

tender

o

any

amount

n

Egypt,

and

no

adjustment

hould

have

been

neededas

between he two

for

the

reckoning

of

payments:

but

the fact that

silver

was

undervalued

s

currency

would

naturally

tend to

drive

it

out of

circulation:no one

would want

to

give

a

silver

tetradrachm

n

payment

for a

debt of that

amount,

f

he knewthat he

could

get

more han

four

drachmas or t in

the

silver

market.

Goldceased

o

play

an

mportant

part

n the

Egyptian

currency

fter he

reign

of

Philadel-

phus:

this

may

have

been to

some

extent due to the exhaustion

of

the Persian

reserve

which

had

been thrown

on

the market

by

Alexander,

and

the

consequent

ecovery

of

gold

values,

which

would make it

better

from

an

economical

point

of

view

for

the

kings

of

Egypt

to

export

their

gold

than

to

use it

for localcirculation;but in any caseinternal rade n Egypt

wouldnot

call for

a

large

supply

of coins

of

high

value. The

only gold

coinsstruck

n

Egypt

after about

270

are

differentiated

rom

he

regular

ilver

by

the choiceof

obverse

ypes:

the

Egyptian

silver tetradrachm

rom

first

to

last

continued

o

bearthe head of

Ptolemy

Soter,

with

only

one brief

exception,

resembling

n

this

consistency

he

great

Greekcommercial

coinages;

but

the

gold

of

the later

kings,

and

a

seriesof

silver double

staters,

had

portraits

of

the

reigning

king

or

his

queen,

alongside

of

which

ran

a serieswith

commemorative

or-

traits of

Arsinoe

I.2

The

former

eries

ended

n

the

reign

of

Epiphanes,

he latter went on

till

that

of

Euergetes

I.

Thesecoinsof

exceptional

ypes

and

exceptional

ize

were

probably

intended

quite

as

much

to

serve as

medals as to

be

used for

ordinary

circulation;

and this

supposition

s

borneout

by

the

absenceof

any

record

of their

having

been

found n

hoards.

Till the end of the thirdcentury,then, there was a dualcurrencyn Egypt: the mints

of

Phoenicia

continued

to

issue coin

for the

Ptolemies so

long

as

they

remained

n

the

possession

of

Egypt,

the

last

known

coin

of

the series

being

dated

in

year

4

of

Epiphanes.

But that

the

silverhad

ceased o

be currentat its nominalvalue

is shown

by

an

entry

in

an

account,

probably

of the end

of

the

third

century,

n which

a

man

pays

16

dr. 5?

obols

for a

silver

stater,

which

would

be

eitherof

Alexandrine r Phoenician

tandard:3 n

the

former

case the

silver

drachmawas

worth a

little

more than

four

Egyptian

drachmas,

n

the

latter

somewhat

more. This

agrees

adequately

with the

rate

of

exchange

known for the

first

century

s.C.,

which

gave

an

Attic

drachma

or a

Roman denarius

for

a

Ptolemaic

tetra-

drachm.

So

it

was

natural hat

for

purposes

f

trading

convenience

omekindof

adjustment

shouldbe made: in certaincases,mainlyofficialpaymentswhere argesums of moneywere

Svoronos,

nos.

1123-4,

1136.

2

The

series

begins

with

Svoronos,

p.

64.

3

UPZ, 149,

1.

32.

204



7/9

THE

CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE

PTOLEMIES

205

likely

to

be

involved,

regulations

were

issued

for

taking

bronze

at

a

discount,

to

compensate

for the

trouble involved

in

handling

it,

in

others it

was

taken at

par.

But as

the bronze was

exported

at

a

metal

value,

and

the silver was

mainly

used for

foreign

trade,

the

ratio of

metals

had to

be

related

to

external

values as

well

as

internal;

and,

though

there

are

no

definite

equations

recorded

in

the

third

century,

the terms

of

certain documents

suggest

that

the conversion

of silver

drachmas into

bronze

and

vice versa was

becoming

a

recognized

practice.

The

situation

was

altered

by

the

loss

of

the

Phoenician

possessions

of

Egypt

at

the

turn

of

the

century:

there

was no

longer

the

need

to

supply

the merchants of

Tyre

and

Sidon

with

silver

coinage,

but

Cyprus

still

remained

in

the

hands

of

the

Ptolemies,

and

did

not

use

the

heavy

Egyptian

bronze as

its normal

currency.

So

almost

simultaneously

with

the

last

issues

of

Ptolemaic

coins

from a

Phoenician

mint,

there

appeared

a

new series

of tetradrachms

at the

Cypriote

mints of

Paphos,

Salamis,

and

Citium.2

These continue

the

same

types,

but

go

back

to

theold

legend

of

P

TOAE

MA

OY

B

A

I

AEf

,

which

suggests

that

they

were struck

with a view to circulation in Egypt rather than in the outlying possessions; and they actually

did

circulate

in

Egypt

much

more

freely

than the Phoenician

issues,

occurring

in

considerable

numbers

in

hoards as well

as

sporadically.

It

is noticeable

that

they

are

not

punch-marked

like

their

predecessors,

which shows

that

they

were taken

at

their

face value

in

Egyptian

trade:

also,

while the

weight

of the coins

was

approximately

the

same

as

before,

they

were

of

inferior

metal:

analysis

shows

a

debasement

which

steadily

increased,

till at the

end

there

was

only

about 25

per

cent.

of

silver

in

them.

This can

clearly

be connected

with

the local

valuation

of silver

at the

end of the third

century

mentioned

above:

if

silver

was

worth

four

times

as much

in

Egypt

as

in

Greece,

the

Egyptian

drachma

should

only

contain one

quarter

of the silver

in

the

Greek.

Of

course this meant that

the

currency

of the debased

Ptolemaic

silver was practically confined

to

Egypt;

no one outside would

look

at

it at its

face

value,

nor was

it attractive

as

metal.

So,

while the

third-century

coins are

found

in

Greece

and Asia

Minor,

the second

and

first-century

tetradrachms

hardly

ever occur there.

But the debasement

of the silver

involved

a

revisiqn

of

the rates

of

exchange

for the

bronze;

the two

had been

related

to suit

the

foreign

market,

and when outside

support

forsook

the

debased

silver

tetradrachm,

the bronze

drachma

lost

ground

in

sympathy;

and

its

collapse

was the

more

rapid

because

it had no

recognized equivalent

in

the

ordinary

Greek

schemes

of

currency.

Early

in the second

century

the bronze drachma

and its

frac-

tions

ceased

to

be struck

on

the

standard

introduced

under

Philadelphus,

and

a

fresh

set

of

bronze

coins

was

issued,

which must

have

been

regarded

as unrelated

to

the earlier

series,

since

they

are

not found

associated

with them in hoards to

any

extent:

large

hoards

of the

third-century

bronze are common, and likewise of the later, but it is rare to come upon even

one

or two

stray

examples

of

the

third-century

coins

in a hoard

of the

second

century.

The

new model

of bronze continued

to be struck with little

variation

in

standard

till

the

end

of

the

Ptolemaic

dynasty;

and

the

valuation

put

upon

the

coins can be deduced

from

the

denominations which

appear

on the last issues

of

the

series

in

the

reign

of

Cleopatra

VII.

The

two common

bronze coins

of

this

reign

are marked

respectively

P

and

M,3

which

Regling

has

shown

to

represent

80 and

40 bronze

drachmas,4

and it is

the more

probable

that this valua-

tion

can be carried back

to the

beginning

of the

series,

as

the

sums recorded

as

paid

at this

period

in

papyri

postulate

the existence

of some

currency

in

which

the

drachma was

of

very

light

weight:

it

is common to

find statements

of

the

payment

of

many

talents

in bronze

money, which would have been an impossible burden in the third-century bronze with its

1

E.g.

P.

Mich.,

173.

2

The series

begins

with

Svoronos,

p.

217,

group

5,

2.

3

Svoronos,

p.

311,

Nos.

1871

and

1872.

4

Z.f.

Numism., 1901,

115.



8/9

J. G.

MILNE

drachma

weighing

about

a

quarter

of

a

pound,

but was

comparatively easy

when the

bronze

talent was

represented

by

seventy-five pieces

of

eighty

drachmas

weighing

perhaps

five

pounds

in all.

The exact date of

the

official

change-over

cannot

be

settled

at

present.

The new

silver

coinage

began

in

the second

year

of

Epiphanes,

so

far as known

coins

show,

but it

does

not

follow that

the alteration

in

the bronze

issues was

contemporaneous

with

this: it

is

quite

probable

that it was

effected

somewhat

later,

when

the

results

of the

depreciation

of

the

silver were

felt

in

trade.

But it seems

to be clear from

the evidence

of

P.

Mich. 182

that

the

change

was

operating

before

182

B.C.;

in

this

papyrus

there

is

a

record of

a

loan

of

44T.

4800dr. in

bronze,

though

the

penalty

for

non-fulfilment of

the contract

is

expressed

in

silver

of the

old

coinage.

Whether the

payment

of the fine

would

have been made

in

this

old

coinage,

if

a

default had

occurred,

may

be doubted: but as

the

depreciated

silver

was

legally

of

the

same value

as

the

good

silver,

the terms

of

the contract

would

have

been

satisfied

by

payment

in

the new

tetradrachms. As a

matter of

fact,

the old

third-century

tetradrachms

lingered on in circulation, and are found mixed up with their debased successorsin hoards of

the

second

century

and

even later:

there is no

complete

break at

this

point

in

the silver

currency,

as there

is in

the

bronze. As the

Ptolemaic

coinage

was

from

first

to last

on

a

nominally

silver

standard,

even when

it

was

expressed

in

bronze,

the

purchasing

power

of

the standard

coin,

the

tetradrachm,

was

not affected

by

its

debasement,

any

more than the

purchasing power

of

the

English

silver

coinage

has

been

affected

by

its

debasement

in

1920.

But after the bronze

drachma

lost

its

intrinsic relation

to

the

silver

and

became a

mere

token,

it

collapsed

at

the

first crisis and

was no

more

than a

term of

account.

The

natural

result of

this was that

for

business

purposes

a ratio had

to

be fixed

as between

the

silver

and

the

bronze

coins;

and

from

about 160 B.C. t

is the

normal

feature

in

accounts

to

convert

silver drachmas into

bronze

or

vice

versa. The rates vary considerably, but are

seldom

above

500:1

or

below

400:1,

and

the

average

works out

at

nearly

440:1.

This

in-

dicates that

the

rate of

conversion,

like

exchange

rates

to-day,

was

a

matter for

settlement

in

the

money

market:

it

is

not

clear

whether

the

government

made

any

attempt

in

the

second

century

to

control

the

movements,

but if

they

did it

seems to

have had

as

little effect as

similar

attempts by governments

have now.

Thirty years ago

the rate

of

the

piastre

to

the

pound

Turkish at

Smyrna, nominally

100:1,

varied

in

commercial

quotations

from 108:1

to 182:1. In

the last

years

of the

dynasty

Cleopatra,

as

we have

seen,

appears

to

have tried

to

stabilize the ratio

by

marking

her

coins as of

eighty

and

forty

bronze

drachmas,

which

suggests

a

ratio of

480

:;

at this

figure

the

coin of

eighty

bronze drachmas

would

be

an

obol

of

the

silver standard.

This

agrees

approximately

with

the

statement

of

Festus that

the

Alexandrian talent was of twelve denarii; as the silver content of the denariuswas about the

same

as

that of the

Alexandrian

tetradrachm,

this

gives

a

ratio of 500:1.

It

is

possible

that

in

the

second

century

the

government

intended

the bronze

to

be taken

at a

similar

rate,

but

as the coins have no

marks

of

value

nothing

certain can

be said: the

commonest

pieces,

which

form

the

bulk

of the

hoards

of

the

second and first

centuries,2

are of

a

size

comparable

with

that

of

the

eighty

drachma

coins

of

Cleopatra.

The

evidence of

coins

found in

Egypt

shows

that

there was

more

joint

circulation of

silver

and

bronze

in

the second

and

first

centuries than

in

the latter

part

of

the

third,

and this

accords with

the

evidence

of

papyri-not

so much

the official records

as

the

stray

entries

in

private

papers.

Thus in

the

middle

of

the second

century

we find a

man

at

Tebtunis collect-

ing four drachmas silver-i.e. a tetradrachm-and five hundred drachmas bronze on every

1

Festus,

p.

359

(Miiller).

2

Svoronos,

Nos. 1224

and

1384,

and 1424.

206



9/9

THE

CURRENCY

OF

EGYPT

UNDER

THE

PTOLEMIES

207

thirty

arourae;

and at

the

same

place

a

complaint

of the theft

of

six

hundreddrachmas f

coined silver

and

seven talents of

bronze.1

Fortunately

he

difference etween

he

silver

and

the

bronze

drachma

s

so

great

that

there

is little

risk of

confusion

whenwe

have to

decide

which s

meant

n a

statement

of

prices

or

payments:

but

the variations

n

the

exchange

ates

must be

taken

into

consideration.

1 P. Tebt.

739 and 743.

This content downloaded from 193 92 136 160 on Tue 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf